I quote from Stillman p 143: “According to this view, under law means under the condemnation of God’s moral law, and under grace speaks of the deliverance from this condition. Some problems arise from this view. First, Paul usually uses the word law to refer to the law of Moses in particular…When Paul spoke to those saints in the churches of Galatia who desired to be under the law, was he talking to people who longed to be under the condemnation of the law?…When Paul wrote that Jesus was born under the law, did he mean that Christ was born under the condemnation of the law? Under law means under the jurisdiction of the Mosaic covenant. Furthermore, if under law and under grace are existential categories describing an individual’s condemnation or justification, then Paul’s argument is a non-sequitur. It is not justification but sanctification that frees us from the dominion of the sin.”

It is that last sentence which is the most objectionable (to me) in Stillman’s book. Of course, that reading of Romans 6 is very common to many Reformed people. Like John Murray, or Lloyd Jones, or Sinclair Ferguson, they tell us that “freed from sin” in Romans 6:7 cannot mean “justified from sin” because this chapter is about sanctification and not about justification. It seems obvious to me that this is simply begging the question.

I appreciate your comments, especially so in light of the need to be peaceable in so far as it is possible in our public Internet context.

I think the provided summaries of the doctrinal differences between Catholic and Reformed understandings of justification are quite good; indeed, I am glad that they confirm my own understandings of the differences.

Yet, I must admit a bit of perplexity at the risk of seeming unappreciative: while I do understand why these summaries would be offered–and they are good ones–I don’t quite grasp why the exegetical question is being avoided. I greatly enjoy systematic theologies of justification, but I think the exegetical question asked in my first comment of what was really getting Paul riled up about the Judaizers in his epistle to the Galatians is at least equally as important as accurate summaries of Reformed and Catholic doctrines of justification.

I do understand a possible response of “why don’t you just check a bible commentary or something,” but in anticipation of such a reasonable response, I would agree I can do so, and yet I believe there is great value to a exegetical viewpoint that is sympathetic to both sides, which is what I believed I could find here and which is less readily available in such texts.

Lastly, if in the opinion of VIPs, I should drop this line of inquiry for now, please let me know and I will gladly do so.

Cheers,
Albert

If I may posit a spanner into the discussion, it would be helpful to know how Reformed Theology understands the Sermon on the Mount with regard to justification.

It would seem that the issue of justification frequently centers around the letters of Paul. It is important to remember that Paul’s letters must always be seen in the light of the Gospel of Christ and not the other way around. Clearly Christ’s words that we are blessed as “peacemakers” inherently links our actions with our blessing.

Is it not possible, as the Catholic Church asserts, that we are justified by the grace of Christ alone, but that our actions do have consequence on our worthiness to enter into God’s presence?

Why are these theological concepts at odds? Without the grace of Christ no one is saved. Without holiness no one is suitable for heaven. Christ sanctifies us but what we do is a direct consequence of who we are. Our choices have repercussions. It is the hand of God which carries us to Him, but we never lose the freedom to jump out into the fire. Sin has real results.

I realize that this is a rather basic point and surely has been answered by someone somewhere, but it would seem an important one to address within our discussion here.

Email me privately if you get a chance. Thanks.

Brad (bbirzer at hillsdale dot edu)

Thanks for the well-reasoned, tempered response. And, you’re absolutely right–let’s not confuse the harangue with the controversy. Well stated. My dripping sarcasm yesterday didn’t help the discussion much. Admittedly!

In all honesty, though, I’m not sure I understand the problem. The statement on justification from Trent sounds pretty much like something from Luther or Calvin.

I’ve not read Andrewes’s sermon. I look forward to it–especially given T.S. Eliot’s admiration for Andrewes.

Again, thanks for injecting a little calm into the discussion.

Yours,
Brad

We can agree there is no use for the vituperation that seems always to attend this controversy. It is to be abhorred. I hope, however, that we do not confuse the harangues with the controversy itself.

What distresses Protestants about Trent is the insistence on a right to heaven that comes through satisfying the law. Qualify that right as one may, it cannot but be deeply problematic.

Now is not the time to rehash the whole matter. As my final thought on this thread, I would recommend Lancelot Andrewes’ sermon on justification in Christ’s name, which sums up the matter excellently.

Blessings in Christ,

John

“That they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and co-operating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.”

Any insight you could provide would greatly aid me with my freshmen at Hillsdale. I will certainly read your post and refer them to your fascinating website during our discussions.